I have been around the gaming industry for decades now and out of all the companies in the gaming industry, i have been never seeing so much negativity directed to a company like EA. Beside Konami which by looking at they their last gen sales you can see why they decided to close their game making shop.

EA had made some mistakes and bad decision over the last decades and some of them are inexcusable like the pre-update Sim City reboot, yet the good thing about them is they listen and always try to correct their mistakes which is not the case for some of the competition.

As a result, i always had a soft spot for EA and i believe that Command and Conquer: Rivals as a game is one of the proofs why EA isn't as bad as the internet make it out to be. I'll be comparing C&CR with Clash Royale since they are too similar.

-One of the first thing you will notice when you play the game is that the game will throw at you cards and currency every time you level up since the game has a profile progression system but unlike Clash Royale when you level up your profile it won't affect your main base as the game has a different direction for this aspect.

-Additionally, the game has milestone system for medals or trophies in CR. Whenever you reach a certain milestone, you'll unlock a new rank along with a crate or more.

-Just like chests in CR, Crates in C&CR have different types but the good thing here is that they all take the same time to open as the silver chest in CR which is 3 hours but you will need 2 fuel tanks for that to happen and you earn them by playing the game. In CR, the chests take up to 24 hours to be ready to unlock.

-The same as CR too, the game has a daily bounties system but the good thing here is that unlike CR once you complete the daily bounties you earn a crate. In CR when you complete a quest you get quest points that adds up until the completion of the chest meter. You receive one quest a day and it adds 20 points to the chest's meter which can be 400 long.

-The only advantage for CR over is the free chest since you receive 3 per day while C&CR has 2 free crates per day.

As is mostly the case when you see the competition EA doesn't end up looking the worse and sometimes the differences feel like a night and day which is how i felt when i played C&CR after CR.

And hey if you are into RTS games then checkout C&CR!

EA doesn't need people marketing for them. They could use much better PR, sure, but that's on their end.

Wait, did it really looked like i'm marketing for them?

If we were to compare then most if not all the major publishers need better PR.

I'm not sure how this is a "proof" of anything. One skinner box game is slightly less grindy than the other, so what? They didn't do that out of goodness of their heart anyway, they have to compete with a more established game, so it's just business.

You framed this thread defensively, as in you are defending EA b/c you liked some of their decisions based off a mobile game. To be fair, I don't think they're worse than any other AAA company and not even close to being the worst company in America, but I don't think they need defending, IMHO. The thread kind of came across as some sort of advert for C&C or rather a list of defenses as to why certain mechanics weren't as bad as they seemed.

My point is that you don't have to be defensive towards the things you like (I'm guilty of it in the past). Just like the things. And especially don't be defensive towards a company's business practices, they don't need the rep boost. They have PR for that.

@gunflame88: it's proves that they're not what the internet claims to be. Game companies are judged by the their games and when their games have a good structure then they can't be bad. It also proves that the competition is worse so they can't be the worst.

All the major publisher's came up with great inventive games but none of them acted like Supercell.

All F2P games are grindy including hearthstone. Otherwise, they won't make money and we should understand that but there are those that are greedy and that's taking it far.

@shivermetimbers: Thanks for the advice mate!

Yeah, i looked like that didn't i?

I have been playing the game for a week and all what i think about when i play it is how can this be a product of the worst company in America? Because i have seen other American gaming publishers and they aren't much better.

If you read what i wrote then you would notice that i have mentioned Konami which is a company that has received more criticism than sales and look what happened.

We should criticise every gaming company and product but we should be fare too. If a non gamer see us chanting about a major publisher in the business as in "EA is the worst company", they won't think much about us.

Still, i hate that EA has exclusivity rights for sports games but unfortunately i can't blame EA for it.

@giant_gamer: It's hard for me to argue anything here because I don't touch mobile games with a 10-foot pole. Most mobile games are either a grindy waste of time or an exploitative waste of money. That industry has simply normalized that kind of awful binary choice over the years, and now people think that there is no alternative to it. A shame. Supercell may have worse business practices than EA in that space, but the difference is lost on me. I care about mainline platforms like PC and consoles, not mobile games. And in this space EA has destroyed many great developers, sucked great franchises dry, egregiously exploited both their customers and their employees. Hell, they are so damn greedy they broke the law on loot box ban in Belgium and are under investigation there. All of that is far more relevant than some mobile game being slightly less grindy than the other. Within the gaming industry they are indeed the worst, or perhaps tied with modern Konami for being the worst.

@giant_gamer: Yeah it does look like you're shilling for them, but then again I've been pissed with how EA treated Command & Conquer post-Kane's Wrath so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not too hyped on this attempt at dressing up a corpse.

The shit they do with the sports franchises is why I hate them. EA sports can eat a dick.

In my opinion, all the AAA companies are equally shady. Even if EA were less shady than all of them, that's not saying much. If anything, the reason why people hate EA more is that when they have a PR problem, they turn what would be equivalent of a bad day into a week long parade. It's always a drawn out spectacle when EA does something wrong.

@gunflame88: i played few smartphones games, Clash Royale and Hearthstone are the ones that got me used to the idea.

Most if not all the major publishers used loot boxes on fully priced multiplayer games and one of them on a single player game!

I never worked for EA and i don't know anyone who did but the general idea i gathered from the internet is that working for a major publisher is not fun and you are more prone to disappoint than please.

Pretty much what i was going for, still we have seen PR stunts from other major publisher. I'm not sure about the Japanese publishers though as they mostly prefer to not comment on their mistakes but try to correct them.

@tunaburn: It all comes down to their "exclusivity rights", as a result we can't have a fair competition in sports games.

I have been blaming THQ for the state of WWE but 2K proved me wrong. So if EA Sports drop one of their exclusivity rights, i'm pretty sure other major publisher will grab it and hire the same dev team due to their LONG experience with the game.

Turning beloved franchises into cash grab phone games is rarely a good look. Same with half-assed, rushed sequels to beloved franchises or paper-thin shooters that rely upon customers to buy loot boxes. Sure, EA’s willing to make changes when their revenue stream might be affected - hi, Disney - but these kinds of things shouldn’t be a problem to begin with.

EA has subscribed to a extremely short sighted business model - the vast majority of their profits stem from microtransactions. Aggressive monetization models been core of all their major releases the past years.

Games that don't support that approach are not developed anymore which leads to established game series being killed and studios closed. The number of actively developed games is so small at that point that once loot boxes will be regulated (and they will sooner or later) EA has little to fall back to.

Once this happens EA has tough years ahead to rebuild a reasonable portfolio.

What a weird hill to die on.

@sparky_buzzsaw: If you look at the recent history of the game then you will know why it is on the phone. C&C never got back to the peak it reached with Generals and a lot of negativity has been directed to the recent games in franchise and i don't remember that it was constructive all what i remember is that their offering was bad and there is a better game somewhere. I won't be surprised if one of EA officials came to me and said in a hush tone "If it weren't for Clash Royale, we wouldn't have given C&C a second look".

@wolfstein_3d: Most if not all major developers are in on this. Some of them have even monetized story driven games. I will write this though, it went south when critics and players alike welcomed Overwatch with open arms, which was a 60$ online only game with loot boxes.

@giant_gamer said:

Your argument "others have shitty business practices so EA isn't the worst but just one of the bad ones" is really odd.

There is a distinct difference between cosmetic, optional MTX as Overwatch offers and a MTX focused progression system as seen in the last Need for Speed, Battlefront 2 or the Ultimate team modes in their sports titles.

If you want an deep dive in why EA's business model in particular is so damaging feel free to watch this video:

For me, one game that's not quite as shitty as it could have been doesn't make up for them:

• buying, mismanaging and closing studios left, right and center.
• cramming really aggressive P2W MTX in every release for a looong time.
• pretty much introducing loot-boxes and their profitability to the industry.

If you wanna buy their stuff that's up to you but releasing a mobile game that doesn't have the WORST POSSIBLE monetisation proves nothing for me and frankly I'd like to see them go completely bust (probably a pipe dream tbh).

EA arn't bad because... they made a slightly friendlier Clash Royale?

My current position with EA games is that i'm playing BF5 because despite being a COD fan i don't like the new one (even though i hate Battlefield... there are no alternatives), and i look forward to seeing what Petroglyph does for those C&C remakes, it's just a shame they'll be exclusive to Origin, also Anthem looks terrible.
EA's dark history is well known and that's always in the back of my mind, at the moment though they keep bouncing between looking like they care at all, then accidently showing that they arn't listening to anyone.

Counterpoint:

The brilliantly stupid Army of Two came to Games with Gold and is backwards compatible on Xbox One, YET the game cannot be played co-op on Live because their bullshit servers were taken down YEARS AGO.

Fuck that!

@wolfstein_3d:Defending loot boxes in Overwatch because they have cosmetics items remind me about the simpler times where the internet used to joke about the 2.5$ horse armor. The joke is on them now! Because with Overwatch they don't even know how much they have to pay to get what they want. Additionally, Fortnite is free to play, only charge for cosmetics and doesn't have loot boxes.

The video you posted claims that EA is the first company which made players pay in game currency for random returns and that was obviously false. Even more, a couple of minutes search showed that Magic the gathering online had booster card packs for 4$ back in 2002 which predates UEFA 2006.

@cikame: There's a difference between not bad and not the worst. I'm saying that they can't be the worst.

I left BF immediately after BFBC2, I believe the reason is that the game has become 64 players afterwards and for that reason i don't feel like i can contribute well with the team alone.

Is Petroglyph really working on a remake for C&C? The only thing i know of is the 8-bit army game.

@nutter: This happens a lot with ex-gen online console games actually. I guess they were betting on the local splitscreen mode.

I would say WB games while they do not put out nearly as many games may be much worse then EA in just about every aspect.

I don't defend Overwatch - you brought up Overwatch as an example that others use MTX the same way EA does. I simply pointed the obvious out that there is a distinct difference between cosmetics and MTX based progression aka P2W. For me personally all of them could be removed today.

The video points out FIFA's Ultimate Team made that business model popular, which is the case. MGTO made in 2017 1/20 of Hearthstones revenue, so even today it's still fairly niche.

You seem to desperately argue for the sake of winning an argument.

@mrgreenman: All major publishers are trying to come up with a monitization idea that works for them. I wish that players and critics alike keep on refusing monitization that negatively affect the gameplay along with any form of RNG monitization.

@wolfstein_3d: Saying that the loot boxes in Overwatch only return cosmetic items is the usual defense come back and the guy on the video seems to be pretty defensive towards it. When i brought up Overwatch i meant that when the publishers knew that Overwatch -the 60$ multiplayer-only game- had purchasable loot boxes and almost everyone are okay with it, they had to try for themselves.

I'm almost sure that Hearthstone is the one that made loot boxes popular, that's why most developers followed through even though card games used to use booster packs. Additionally, UEFA had booster packs but not loot boxes. Just like Overwatch's player base, FIFA's Ultimate Team players never made major complaints about it and it seems that they are supporting it pretty well! If i was EA or Blizzard, i would thank them for their support and keep on giving them what they seem they want to buy.

If there is one certainly that certainly isn't true from every story we've gotten in 2018 about major game companies is that making a shitty mobile doesn't rank at all on shitty things a company can do

@giant_gamer:

From your post, I don't believe you have watched the video which @wolfstein_3d: has posted earlier. This was a very informative video and talks about "EA's card packs" Obsession from both sides so please do watch it.

If not, let me quickly sum up points in the video that relate to your statement.

• FIFA 2007 introduced card packs in their ultimate team team mode, which were initially earned through in game money.
• These card packs would affect your progression in game and do not focus on cosmetics.
• FIFA 2009 executive's producer, Andrew Wilson brought this mode in to the option to pay for these card packs with real money.
• This system would become a well renowned system in EA and slowly be integrated in all their games. With in a few years, the FIFA Ultimate mode alone would make an increasing amount of money through this mode. In 2014 EA made $380 million from this mode alone.
• Andrew Wilson would become CEO of EA in 2013.
• 2012's Mass Effect 3 would become the first non sports video game to have purchasable loot boxes. These were heavily based on the FIFA card packs as Bioware would work with FIFA developers on these.
• EA's development costs have gone down over the past few years, ever since the highest point in 2009.
• Overwatch's loot boxes have not been a strong form of revenue as EA's loot boxes.
• Non video related point: Hearthstone was first released in Beta in fall of 2013 and fully release in April 2014 ONLY on desktops.

TL:DR "EA's card packs" were implemented back in 2007, and Andrew Wilson, EA's current CEO, gave the idea of making them purchasable in 2009. EA profits a fair amount off these "card packs", which will: affect game play, were not made to be for cosmetics and were implemented in non sports games ever since Mass Effect 3 in 2012.

@giant_gamer: It’s rare on Xbox, as I understand it. The only real cases I’m familiar with are original Xbox games and EA games.

Fortunately, NBA Jam still works...

This Thread is hella dumb

@pewpewphil : I saw half of it and i wrote that Magic the gathering Online had virtual card packs that you can buy with real money back in 2002 and acquiring cards in that game is the progression

The video stated that EA is the one who brought the business model but that is not true as it naturally take us back to card games where building a strong deck is a key to win. Still, i'm not sure but maybe someone other than Magic the gathering who first brought this to the industry.

I just looked up Mass Effect 3 loot boxes and omg! they look a lot like the loot boxes we now see in F2P games! Could it be that EA has brought gambling to us?